The idea is that we are the most free nation on Earth; this is what I have been taught. I never saw a need to question it. Freedom of press, freedom of speech.
I still think in some ways we are pretty free. I mean, in a more repressive country, someone like Jon Stewart would have been thrown in a gulag a long time ago, accused of speaking out against his government. We would have no "Saturday Night Live," unless it was called "Our Country, It Is Glorious."
And yet, I do not think we are completely free, or at least as free as we have been taught from infancy that we are. It might be that asking to be completely free is too much to ask. Some might interpret "completely free" as being able to just walk up to some chick on the street, honk her breast, and say "good mornin' stranger!" So we could use the word "free" but only with the proviso that the freedom in question doesn't encroach on other people's well-being and rights.
Then again, the man who feels that his need to honk a breast uninvited as a necessary part of his well-being might find that a value judgment against his happiness has been made, and that he is not indeed free. So right from the beginning, we have had not only to place limits on freedom, but make certain assessments as to what is and what is not acceptable. I think this is needed. But does this gets extended into areas where there might or might not be any immediate danger to another person?
Say the breast-honker is an artist, and makes a comic book for himself and others of his ilk called "Breast Honk Monthly." "Breast Honk Monthly" is made up of nothing but stories of guys going up to women and honking their breasts without permission. Should that comic be banned or censored under the idea that it incites or condones such behavior? And if it is censored for those reasons, would we say that the artist's freedoms have been unnecessarily curtailed? Indeed, would the artist feel he is living in a repressive regime? Or is he just a skank?
I think it's possible that the artist could be living in a repressive society and still be a skank. I'm really uncomfortable with banning a piece of artwork because it might incite imitators, and it seems like the Supreme Court is, too. On the other hand, every retailer has the right not to carry a product, and if Breast Honk Monthly isn't something they wanted in their store, they wouldn't carry it.
ReplyDeleteFor all the fuss about Mike Diana's so-called "obscene" art, I really doubt Boiled Angel ever had a wide distribution to begin with.
Such a publication should not be made illegal. If society deems an act illegal, then committing that act and only committing that act should be reprehensible.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to get away from what I call paradigmatic readings of literature; a phrase which I use to describe the notion that creating or enjoying a piece of literature means you necessarily want to emulate the actions of its protagonist.
With regard to illegal actions as they are portrayed in artwork, no one bats an eye when someone makes a movie about murder. Why aren't the examinations of other crimes afforded the same luxury?
Well... I think freedom of speech is pretty important, and that the best answer to "bad speech" is probably more speech.
ReplyDeleteI'd say we should not censor that comic. I think it is enough to speak out against it. I think we have to rely on the idea that our fellow citizens are (on average) not going to break the law, and punish the ones that do. When it all comes down, I don't think it's right to punish people for thoughts.
One thing that I found interesting when working at a comic shop was that we had magazines about growing pot. This is an illegal act, but we sell magazines about it. This struck me as odd, as I don't often see magazines about how best to murder or good techniques in thievery. But, I guess since growing pot is considered a "victimless crime", it is ok to make a magazine showing the results of it. Nevermind that people are hurt by the illegal drug trade and drug abuse--because that is an indirect result, it is not considered relevant. I think it would be the same thing here. It is the person who actually violates the rights of another who has actually done the crime... and, if someone actually INCITES that violation, they can be held responsible as well. Otherwise, it becomes too tricky to hold someone responsible for generating thoughts that lead to another person's actions.
I maintain that so long as the government doesn't get involved, it's not actually censorship. Part of freedom of expression involves the understanding that societal pressure will police extremes of behavior that have little to no potential benefit for society. Private entities, either individuals or corporations, have the right to disapprove of any material they personally find offensive, or are aware that a substantial number of people would find offensive and therefore do not want their name associated with it. As long as the artist is not legally prevented from publishing "Breast Honk Monthly" he can't say he's being oppressed. Meanwhile, it is up to society to have a dialogue about breast-honking and to work together to curtail such behavior. Easier said than done, I know, but no one said freedom was easy.
ReplyDeleteLike you said, I never felt a need to question it. I understand that freedom is vital, but not absolute.
ReplyDeleteSo I have an easy enough answer to your last set of questions. He is a skank, but curtailing his freedom by banning his comic is a non-starter with me. It does not raise anywhere near the level of that immediate danger you spoke of (yelling fire in a theater for example).
And, not that most folks here don't' already know this, but its a quick jump from Breast Honk Monthly to unwanted political or religious speech.
Now they have, in my opinion, the right to produce/read the magazine, but I also have the right to think they are a skank, and to say as much in a review, or to my friends or such. Their freedom to say it doesn't translate to anyone else having to condone or accept it.
Oh, he should certainly have the freedom to create a book called "Breast-Honkers Monthly" about such things.
ReplyDeleteBut limits on freedom are necessary when it comes to protecting individuals from other individuals who would do harm. A totally free society could only exist if everyone agreed on certain moral points and had the same thoughts and perspectives, since then there would be no differentiation in why someone does a certain thing and everyone knows their limits. But then again, I don't think anyone wants to become a hive-mind.
My two cents:
ReplyDeleteIn line with your proviso, I would put this example in the “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins” category, where the women’s right of privacy clearly (one would hope!) outweighs the man’s desire to fondle. There’s no question that he would be a sexual assaulter in real life, as well as being an artist of serious skankitude. His real-life crimes, though, shouldn’t cause his art to be censored or banned. (I would suggest either shunned or vilified.)
If he produced fumetti of actual breast-honking, then such images would be both an invasion of the women’s privacy and evidence in their criminal cases. Drawing images of the same assaults, though, shouldn’t be grounds for legal action—leaving aside the extent of our personal “ick” factors. (Doing so would get into “thoughtcrime” territory, and might well justify his persecution complex.)
"With regard to illegal actions as they are portrayed in artwork, no one bats an eye when someone makes a movie about murder."
ReplyDeletePeople batted alot of eyes at Natural Born Killers and American Psycho. Even Bonnie and Clyde.
As Commander William Adama said:
"context matters"
Ah... But what if such an act were satire or humor? What if I greeted you with "hello, stranger!" and then gave you two honks on my Harpo Marx bike horn? Or, if when shaking your hand, i give it slight squeeze and a whispered "honk honk"?
ReplyDeleteor the comic's about a guy who pathologically is inclined to honk women, and the humor and pathos involved. Perhaps it's an allegory on man's basest desires, at war with mankind's civility.
hey, can we make this the secret greeting among OS readers? whenever we meet, we add a honk honk greeting while shaking hands. :)
"People batted alot of eyes at Natural Born Killers and American Psycho. Even Bonnie and Clyde."
ReplyDeleteYes, but you can go into any video store in the country and see rack after rack of DVDs in the horror section that feature people being killed and tortured in horrific (and illegal) ways, and it doesn't bother (or, I should say, shock) too many people.
The people who watch and make these movies aren't necessarily bad, nor are the movies themselves (necessarily).